Literature DB >> 31471111

The effect of using different coordinate systems on in-vivo hip angles can be estimated from computed tomography images.

Keisuke Uemura1, Penny R Atkins2, Andrew E Anderson3.   

Abstract

Measurements of hip kinematics inherently depend on the coordinate system in which they are derived, yet the effect of the coordinate system definition on calculations of hip angles is not well-understood. Herein, hip angles calculated during dynamic activities were compared using coordinate systems described in the literature. In-vivo kinematic data of 24 participants (13 males) were analyzed during gait and the anterior impingement test using dual fluoroscopy and model-based tracking. Two coordinate systems for the pelvis (anterior pelvic plane, International Society of Biomechanics [ISB]) and three coordinate systems for the femur (table top plane with two definitions of the superior-inferior axis, ISB) were evaluated. Bony landmarks visible on computed tomography (CT) images were identified to establish each coordinate system and used as the basis to calculate differences in hip angles between coordinate system pairs. In the analysis during gait, the maximum differences derived from various coordinate system definitions were 6.7° ± 5.5° for flexion, 7.7° ± 2.1° for rotation, and 5.5° ± 0.7° for adduction. For the anterior impingement test, the differences were 8.1° ± 5.9°, 7.1° ± 1.2°, and 5.3° ± 0.7°, respectively. Landmark-based analysis using CT images could estimate these dynamic differences with errors less than 1.0°. Our results indicate that hip angles can be accurately transformed to angles calculated in different coordinate systems by accounting for the inherent bony anatomy. This information may aid in the interpretation of results across biomechanical studies of the hip.
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Year:  2019        PMID: 31471111      PMCID: PMC6800649          DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2019.109318

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Biomech        ISSN: 0021-9290            Impact factor:   2.712


  16 in total

1.  ISB recommendation on definitions of joint coordinate system of various joints for the reporting of human joint motion--part I: ankle, hip, and spine. International Society of Biomechanics.

Authors:  Ge Wu; Sorin Siegler; Paul Allard; Chris Kirtley; Alberto Leardini; Dieter Rosenbaum; Mike Whittle; Darryl D D'Lima; Luca Cristofolini; Hartmut Witte; Oskar Schmid; Ian Stokes
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 2.712

Review 2.  Rotational alignment of the distal femur: a literature review.

Authors:  J Victor
Journal:  Orthop Traumatol Surg Res       Date:  2009-07-09       Impact factor: 2.256

3.  Soft tissue artifact causes significant errors in the calculation of joint angles and range of motion at the hip.

Authors:  Niccolo M Fiorentino; Penny R Atkins; Michael J Kutschke; Justine M Goebel; K Bo Foreman; Andrew E Anderson
Journal:  Gait Posture       Date:  2017-03-31       Impact factor: 2.840

4.  In-vivo hip arthrokinematics during supine clinical exams: Application to the study of femoroacetabular impingement.

Authors:  Ashley L Kapron; Stephen K Aoki; Christopher L Peters; Andrew E Anderson
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2015-04-22       Impact factor: 2.712

5.  Anatomical factors in the stability of the hip joint in the newborn.

Authors:  B McKibbin
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1970-02

6.  Three-dimensional quantification of femoral head shape in controls and patients with cam-type femoroacetabular impingement.

Authors:  Michael D Harris; Shawn P Reese; Christopher L Peters; Jeffrey A Weiss; Andrew E Anderson
Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng       Date:  2013-02-15       Impact factor: 3.934

7.  Is distal femoral torsion the same in both of a patient's legs? Morphometric CT study.

Authors:  J-S Beranger; D Dujardin; J-F Taburet; P Boisrenoult; C Steltzlen; P Beaufils; N Pujol
Journal:  Orthop Traumatol Surg Res       Date:  2018-04-18       Impact factor: 2.256

8.  Accuracy and feasibility of dual fluoroscopy and model-based tracking to quantify in vivo hip kinematics during clinical exams.

Authors:  Ashley L Kapron; Stephen K Aoki; Christopher L Peters; Steve A Maas; Michael J Bey; Roger Zauel; Andrew E Anderson
Journal:  J Appl Biomech       Date:  2014-02-25       Impact factor: 1.833

9.  Can Anatomic Measurements of Stem Anteversion Angle Be Considered as the Functional Anteversion Angle?

Authors:  Keisuke Uemura; Masaki Takao; Yoshito Otake; Koki Koyama; Futoshi Yokota; Hidetoshi Hamada; Takashi Sakai; Yoshinobu Sato; Nobuhiko Sugano
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2017-09-21       Impact factor: 4.757

10.  Hip rotation during standing and dynamic activities and the compensatory effect of femoral anteversion: An in-vivo analysis of asymptomatic young adults using three-dimensional computed tomography models and dual fluoroscopy.

Authors:  Keisuke Uemura; Penny R Atkins; Niccolo M Fiorentino; Andrew E Anderson
Journal:  Gait Posture       Date:  2018-01-31       Impact factor: 2.840

View more
  2 in total

1.  A robust method for automatic identification of femoral landmarks, axes, planes and bone coordinate systems using surface models.

Authors:  Maximilian C M Fischer; Sonja A G A Grothues; Juliana Habor; Matías de la Fuente; Klaus Radermacher
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-11-30       Impact factor: 4.379

2.  In Vivo Quantification of Hip Arthrokinematics during Dynamic Weight-bearing Activities using Dual Fluoroscopy.

Authors:  Penny R Atkins; Niccolo M Fiorentino; Andrew E Anderson
Journal:  J Vis Exp       Date:  2021-07-02       Impact factor: 1.424

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.